Brevo MCP Server

update_campaign_status

Update a campaign's status to pause, resume, or archive it by providing the campaign ID and desired status (suspended, archive, darchive, sent, queued, or replicate).

Instructions

Update campaign status (pause, resume, archive)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "campaignId": "<campaignId>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "update_campaign_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`campaignId`	Yes	ID of the campaign
`status`	Yes	New campaign status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.7Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'update campaign status' without detailing side effects, validation rules, required permissions, or what happens during status transitions. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with only 6 words plus parenthetical examples. No filler, but it lacks structure like bullet points or clear separation of details. It is efficient but slightly under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values, error scenarios, and effects. It does not mention any of these. The low complexity (2 params) partially mitigates, but overall the description is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the description adds minimal extra value. It lists example statuses (pause, resume, archive) but these do not exactly match the enum ('suspended', 'archive', 'darchive', etc.), which could mislead. Brevity limits further semantic enrichment.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'update' on resource 'campaign status' with examples like pause, resume, archive. However, the actual enum values in the schema differ slightly (e.g., 'suspended' instead of 'pause', 'archive' present), which may cause confusion. Still, the core purpose is well communicated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings such as 'update_email_campaign' or 'send_campaign_now'. The description does not specify prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server